This is an unofficial ranking as the title says. The rules are not clear and subject to interpretation, so we will have to wait for the official ranking.
Check out the Impossible Futures!
3 Likes
I see. Unfortunately, participation in IF voting was low. I myself almost chose not to participate. With these numbers there is only a total of â64 unique votersâ (and I know that two of these âunique votersâ is me). Surely Iâm not the only voter who used multiple wallets for benign reasons.
Had there been a higher participation rate, individuals wouldnât move the market so much. I donât consider myself a whale, and in the end, 10% of a projectâs votes cost me only around $100 of ANT (which I acquired through mining with one wallet, and burning MAID with the other wallet).
3 Likes
I suspect understanding the rules and needing ANT to vote put folks off voting. At least those outside of the community. On the bright side, those who did vote probably did so thoughtfully.
3 Likes
An anxious wait until Monday for those at the bottom of the list and those with few individual voters.
Iâm reasonably confident the projects I backed all had a larger no of individual votes and that their status will be confirmed.
maybe get rid of the vote for yourself (with big ant#) option, I canât bring myself to do that in a fair vote, its like taping the winning ticket to the bottom of the draw hat. 
1 Like
Just to clarify - these are unofficial results. The metrics for âpopularityâ and âaverage unique votersâ are something we proposed. The Impossible Future team mentioned they would disqualify entries with very few unique voters, but didnât define what âfewâ actually means. Thatâs why we suggested using the average as a reference point - anything below that might be considered too low.
We introduced the âpopularityâ metric because it doesnât seem fair that projects with a huge gap in unique voter count can still rank high, while a project like Colony - one of the most publicly supported - ends up outside the top. The raw vote numbers are close in many cases, so we believe another balancing factor is needed.
The 50% rule and the concern about low vote counts were meant to prevent whales from deciding the outcome alone, right? Or maybe we misunderstood the intention there.
Itâs always possible that one person voted from multiple addresses. Weâre not saying thatâs malicious - but we also canât verify it. So weâre counting unique addresses for now, and leave the rest to the votersâ conscience.
As shown in the next screenshot, ArbiTrack provides more transparency - listing which addresses voted, when, and how much. Interestingly, someone in Discord mentioned that this voting system is turning the community against itself - that it feels more like bidding against each other than collaborative support. Thatâs why more transparency might help us all understand the dynamics better.
3 Likes
Interesting. I see that with Autonomi Transaction Reporter, the two transactions to cast 15,000 votes were within 15 minutes of each other, about a day into IF voting. Maybe the voter figured several other voters would participate over the remaining time but in the end they cast >50%.
My transaction was the one on 5/13/2025 (2000 votes). Took me a while before I cast my votes because I took a while looking over a lot of projects and taking notes before I even looked at the leaderboard. Some projects that I liked I didnât vote for, because I was looking for value-investing opportunity (and at position #13, ATRâs vote price was attractive).
If we allow a max vote of 50% per wallet address, Autonomi Transaction Reporter has just 14,002 votes (since me plus the other small-fish voters cast 7001 votes).
4 Likes
Bummer. 34 projects to vote on, only â64 total unique votersâ and we donât know how many voters used multiple wallets like me.
The intention of Infinite Futures was to identify the best projects. But statistically speaking, the outcome has a really small sample size (of âunique votersâ). And if every developer of a project participated in voting (even if using only one wallet each), thatâs easily a majority of voters right there. Normally thereâs nothing wrong with candidates voting for themselves - itâs expected, but in a typical election, the vast majority of the voters are not themselves candidates. Yet here, it seems reasonable to assume that most people who voted were on the ballot themselves.
I myself had been accepted to pitch a project on IF but withdrew last-minute because my pitch wouldnât be ready by the project pages go-live deadline. So for me, participating in voting in IF felt a bit like a civic duty (since I had earlier hoped to be getting people to vote for my thing).
3 Likes
IF Team forbid developers to vote for themself.
3 Likes
Ah thanks, I didnât know that. Iâll edit my post to blur out that part.
3 Likes
@RolandR, in relation to @JimCollinson 's answer to you, I should note that Popularity is our interpretation of the few votes rule. MaidSafe did not provide their interpretation despite numerous requests from @riddim and me.
Check out the Impossible Futures!
The problem here is that a project that seems good by someone who is a good programmer and no reason to suspect he did anything wrong, has been disqualified.
The 50% rule was no doubt well intentioned but arbitrary and flawed. It assumes bad action on the part of the project, or punishes the project for the actions of someone not connected with it. It even gave a way for someone to deliberately sabotage a project - thankfully that doesnât seem to have happened in general. There was much confusion among voters and someone could easily have just not realised or had a fat finger moment.
Obviously we donât know everything, but it leaves a bad feeling about the process.
3 Likes
Thanks, this is helpful comment at least. I am looking forward to get an official statement regarding the rule applications.
2 Likes
Youâre not following things well, the project with 50% of the votes in first place was punished by getting their money back. All the other projects with 50% that have broken the rules not enough are being rewarded by not getting their money back.
Check out the Impossible Futures!
3 Likes
Arggh guys, itâs starting to become so frustrating to be on these forums lately (Discord too, but there Iâm instructed to forward people to the forum). We have to stop these endless debates. Iâm not even saying you guys are wrong, not saying youâre right either. But we as a community are missing out on so many opportunities because of this.
Weâre wasting each others time. Weâre wasting team resources. Weâre consistently driving away people new to the project with this negativity.
The team mentioned IF Phase 1 was a learning experience. They mentioned they didnât do everything right. They also mentioned they cannot please everyone, and theyâre 100% right. That doesnât mean we should continue to demand explanations, adjustments, clarifications. Itâs getting extremely tiresome to a point even Iâm tempted to stop reading the forums.
And again, I cant stress this enough. Iâm not picking sides here. But I want to emphasize that what weâre doing is extremely counter productive in so many ways. Please, stop.
7 Likes
This is actually my main grievance at this point. The supporters backing Ark have lost their money with nothing to show for it. That just doesnât sit right with me.
3 Likes
It looks really bad from the outside and this desire to portray valid concerns as negative speech to keep people quiet also looks really bad. People from the Bulgarian community ask me whatâs going onâŚ
Check out the Impossible Futures!
1 Like
The frustrations are very real. They are a product of what has happened. The frustrations wonât go away simply by not talking about it.
1000% this.
These discussions could be stopped with clear communication. People will stop asking questions once they get actual answers.
2 Likes
I agree Dimitar, and Iâve also mentioned this to the team last week. I explicitly stated that the team consistently portraying the community as negative is adding oil to the fire. People donât feel heard, which adds to the frustrations. Bux replied in depth and has also created the topic âa base to grow fromâ in which she stated we need a reset. Inviting community members to join the jury etc. Itâs not like Iâm only targeting the community, Iâm talking to both sides and I think we would all benefit from a bit more positivity and living by Hanlonâs Razor
The thing is, they have been talked about. In depth. But there is no satisfying answer. I think everyone can agree that Impossible Future Phase 1 was disappointing and needed some optimizations to say the least. Seriously everyone feels the same way. But weâre focusing all the attention towards the negative, instead of towards the 33 projects that qualified and are all amazing in their own way. It was super obvious to everyone participating that phase 1 was a casino, and most even knew it was an unfair one too, weâve had several people state the flaws before it even kicked off. Nobody forced anyone to participate. The fact that Autonomi Transaction Reporter is getting a refund is a curtesy, theyâre not obligated to do it. People with a tiny bit of knowledge couldâve known someone had 50% since day 2? But weâre arguing over this like a bunch of kids that others should get a refund too. Now, even if the team would do that, now you get a bunch of other people whining about how theyâre flooding the market with tokens. It has to stop.
Fully agree, has been mentioned by the community several times and has been acknowledged by the team several times as well. This doesnât change overnight. It takes time. And the more we waste resources debating, the longer it will take. And the more annoying and demanding weâre going to get, the less they want to interact with us on these forums.
2 Likes